The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

A Further Perspective

The Market Sends a Signal: Short Warren Buffett

By on 9.28.11 @ 6:08AM

As Obama campaign prop, Mr. Buffett has reached well beyond his area of expertise to embrace a bad political idea.

Every publication in the country has squirreled away in its files a canned obituary for Warren Buffett and every one of those notices carries virtually the same lede: “Warren Buffett, widely considered the greatest investor of the modern era, died peacefully last night at his modest home in Omaha, Nebraska.”

Mr. Buffett should have left well enough alone.

Mr. Buffett’s company, the legendary Berkshire Hathaway, is now experiencing what Mr. Buffett would describe in any other company as a crisis of leadership. After running off one “heir apparent” after another over the last twenty years, Mr. Buffett now sits alone atop the giant Berkshire portfolio with his longtime associate, Charles Munger. Mr. Buffett is 81. Mr. Munger is 87. Every time the two executives appear in public, there is appreciative attention for their market views and, let’s be candid, acute attention to the impending actuarial reality. Analysts seem to have concluded that Berkshire Hathaway is experiencing precisely the kind of governance problem that Messrs. Buffett and Munger have never tolerated in any of the dozens of companies they own or co-own.

Berkshire stock closed last week at 66, down from its 52-week high of 88. That’s cause for shareholder concern, but no more than transitory concern given Mr. Buffett’s stellar record of investor returns. He has a knack, demonstrated repeatedly, for turning small setbacks into large advances and even at 81 he seems capable of doing it again. What’s different this time is that Mr. Buffett has taken on a new public role that will not only distract him from the investment business, but will inevitably change perceptions of him among colleagues, investors, and perhaps even obituary writers.

Surprising to some, dismaying to many, the iconic Mr. Buffett has signed on with the Obama re-election effort to serve as a kind of campaign prop. Every time the President demands higher taxes on the rich, Mr. Buffett is cued to leap to his feet and exclaim, “Great idea, Mr. President!” Mr. Buffett plays this role with gusto and shows no sign, as distinguished from his audience, of either fatigue or boredom. (The role of Rich Guy Demanding That His Taxes Be Raised is, of course, a staple of the American political theatre and is usually played in road-company productions by Bill Gates Sr. or some particularly guilt-stricken Rockefeller descendant.)

What’s surprising is Mr. Buffett’s apparently unquenchable desire for attention at his late stage of life. He seems to exult in media turns as the slightly dotty, ukulele-strumming uncle, a kind of plush-toy version of an animated Fox-TV tycoon. What’s dismaying is that Mr. Buffett has reached well beyond his area of expertise to embrace a bad political idea. This Obama-Buffett idea —to soak the rich in the current economic environment — is so egregiously bad that, remarkably, it appears to be about neither the money nor the principle of the thing. According to a recent Wall Street Journal story, the so-called “Buffett tax” would have hit only 22,000 taxpayers in the most recent year for which data are available. If the taxes on those taxpayers had been doubled — and assume for the moment that, for the first time in history, the rich would not have mobilized lawyers and accountants to avoid the tax — the total additional revenue to the government would have been $19 billion. Back in his role as a financial analyst, Mr. Buffett would have scoffed at this “millionaires and billionaires” tax as a serious way to close a trillion-dollar annual deficit.

If it’s not about the money, then, it must be about the principle of the thing, right? As far as I can determine, there has been no argument advanced by either President Obama or Mr. Buffett drawn from economic or political principle. They do not bother to contend that the “Buffett tax” will either raise significant revenue or incentivize employers to hire more workers or in any way revive a sick economy. Their argument for the tax-the-rich offensive, rather, has been based on “fairness,” which is an emotional rather than an analytical term.

The number that all sides seem to agree on is that the top one percent of earners currently pay 40 percent of all income taxes. It would not be unreasonable to look at that number and say, “Uh oh, that’s too high in a society that still pays formal allegiance to the principle of shared responsibility. That’s got to be unhealthy for a middle-class economy.” President Obama looked at the number and concluded otherwise: to him, 40 percent appears to be intolerably low and the rich should thus be made to “pay their fair share.” And what might that be, their “fair share”? Would that be sixty percent? Eighty? One hundred percent? The answer for Obama is that the rich must be made to pay enough so as to give emotional satisfaction to their fellow citizens who pay no income taxes themselves. This is not about economics, remember. This is about the politics of division, the politics of bitterness. Obama is not appealing to our better angels, which is precisely why the angelic Mr. Buffett has been so useful to him.

In the fiscal debate now unfolding in Washington there are two statistical tent poles between which are strung all of the subsidiary arguments about tax policy. At one pole is that stunning 40 percent number. At the other is the fact that fully 50 percent of the 144 million tax filers pay no Federal income tax at all. To me, that is an even more stunning number. What it means is that — in what we still like to think of as our middle-class society — half of the middle class (along with a handful of rich guys) pays all of the income taxes while the other half pays none. The Jones family pays, the Smith family doesn’t. Forget about economics. By what standard of “fairness” is that fair to the Jones family? President Obama would respond that the folks at the bottom of the ladder deserve a break, but the numbers are clear on this point: the tax filers in the lower half are not, most of them, anywhere near the bottom of the ladder. By definition, they are, most of them, smack dab in the middle and they are in the process of becoming a powerful and self-defining political class. Call them the non-tax-paying class and understand that, almost always, they will support both higher taxes on the other half and increased government services for themselves. Understand, too, that they have centered their natural enemies in the crosshairs of tax policy: not just the few rich but the vastly more numerous savers and scrimpers and people who play by the rules.

Over the course of his first term, and with its implications now marbled through his proposed reforms and early campaign rhetoric, President Obama has made a historic decision to stand for re-election as the representative of the non-tax-paying class. Depending on the outcome of the 2012 election, that decision could play out as farce, one hopes, or as constitutional strain, one fears. Americans have always had a problem with taxation without representation, and, with Obama reinstalled in the White House, the taxpayers would be effectively unrepresented in the Executive branch of the government.

For Mr. Buffett, the prospects are bleaker still. An old man who can’t find a way to get off stage is always but a few uncertain steps from a farcical finale. We can only hope that he doesn’t take a header into the orchestra pit. But the economic damage has already been done. Year after year for more than a half-century Mr. Buffett has faithfully paid his income taxes. Last year alone, he paid more than $6 million. Imagine if Mr. Buffett had invested those dollars in productive enterprise instead of giving them to President Obama to, oh, prop up the indefensible pension plan for government employees. Think of the jobs that went uncreated, the mortgages unpaid, the medical bills deferred, the college dreams abandoned.

Mr. Buffett claims that he wants to pay higher taxes. The rest of us should want him to pay lower taxes.

About the Author

Neal B. Freeman is chairman of the Blackwell Corporation.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (50) |

JAWilson| 9.28.11 @ 6:40AM

Nobody ever brings up the concept of the negative income tax wherein a significant portion of the 50% who pay no income tax actually are paid stipends for their kids for instance. I think that things are fair enough if someone could frame the whole picture in the media.

Lawrence Boccardi| 9.28.11 @ 7:16AM

Exactly right, JA, with Child Tax Credits, Additional Child Tax Credits, Earned income Credit, and Make Work Pay Credit ($400), we send them a check! Cannot some candidate articulate this, without looking like the guy tying the cutie to the railraod track?

Tibberton| 9.28.11 @ 1:03PM

I think that things are fair enough if someone could frame the whole picture in the media.

Funny. You want to frame it as fair because 50% don't pay taxes. Hey, poor people and retired seniors! Be grateful that you barely make enough to live on and that the government doesn't make your life even harder! Because there are some Republicans who think you shouldn't get away without paying income tax!

Actually you might want to leave that last part out. And don't remind them that the government dips into their pockets with other taxes besides the one on the Form 1040.

Lawrence is right. The GOP candidates need to get out there and make the case strongly that those poor people should be grateful for their four hundred dollar a year credit and shut the frack up about tax breaks for people who earn a million dollars a year or more.

Poor voters need to get some perspective. An exclusive private school in Manhattan can cost over $100,000 per year. For each kid! Flying in a private jet costs $4400 PER HOUR with Netjets and that's for a small jet that feels kind of cramped. The monthly payment on a ten million dollar mortgage is more than fifty thousand dollars. Every month!

Cannot some candidate articulate all of this so that voters who are poor enough to get all those tax credits will be grateful, shut the frack up and vote Republican for a change?

Even funnier is this line from the original article:

As far as I can determine, there has been no argument advanced by either President Obama or Mr. Buffett drawn from economic or political principle.

The principle that you seem so unfamiliar with is fairness.

The argument is that it's unfair that some people who earn over a million dollars a year to pay a lower percentage of their money to the government than other people who are working their asses off and looking forward to the day when their 401k balance will hit six digits.

Curious in Illinois| 9.28.11 @ 6:32PM

Mr Tibberton, you make some thought provoking points. Of course some of us (a) worked hard and took advantage of the public school system to further our knowledge and abilities realizing that our best asset would be ourselves, (b) managed our personal finances in a way that we saved some money for all of life's surprising troubles, and (c) managed our personal finances so that we could take care of ourselves in retirement. My parents followed the above formula as middle class workers - not millionaires or billionaires or private jet owners. Sounds like what you want is communism - everybody gets the same as everybody else - regardless of what they have or haven't done in their lives to better themselves. It seems to me the biggest mistake we make is when people pay nothing for services. Take health insurance as an example. If they don't pay for medical services (becasue the 3rd party insurance company or government pays for it) they don't see a value and don't worry about the value of what they are buying. I suppose the same theory goes for taxation and gov't services. All of the people paying taxes are not happy with what they are receiving for their tax dollars. Those that don't pay any taxes don't value what they receive.

Curious in Illinois| 9.28.11 @ 6:35PM

Sorry. Forgot to address "fairness". I think Obama's comments about millionaires and billiionaires not paying a higher percentage of their income to taxes has been fully refuted already by the CBO and thru the IRS. Sadly, the President does not want to "fairly" explain that people like Warren Buffet pay taxes at a lower level on capital gains and dividend income. I really wish Obama and Buffet would come out and state that cap gains and dividend income shoudl be doubled or tripled. That will help everybody's 401k balances!

Tibberton| 9.28.11 @ 7:00PM

I really wish Obama and Buffet would come out and state that cap gains and dividend income shoudl be doubled or tripled. That will help everybody's 401k balances!

Your 401k is taxed as ordinary income when you take out the funds, not the lower cap gains or dividend rates. Yet another example of how the tax code is weighted against people who work hard for a living.

Sounds like what you want is communism - everybody gets the same as everybody else -

No, not at all. What I'm arguing against is the idea that it's fair for a billionaire to get to keep a larger share of what he makes simply because he's rich enough to structure his income in tax-efficient ways that are not available to people who work hard for a living and get their income in the form of wages.

Your parents worked hard to save money. So do you I'm sure. So did my parents. So did I.

But if your parents had been taxed at rates like Warren Buffett over the years they would be far, far better off. Not just because of the better rates but because of the compounding effect of gains on the money they keep.

Please note that if the rates they paid had been exactly the same Buffett would still be vastly richer, because he's extremely good at what he does and what he's good at is something that produces a lot of money. The end result isn't that everyone gets the same as everyone else.

The point is that the tax code shouldn't make it harder for you and your parents and my parents to accumulate wealth simply because the primary source of income is primarily working hard to earn wages.

Quartermaster| 9.28.11 @ 8:17PM

No sense of irony with Tibberton. The Democrats had a very large part in writing the tax code to help their rich buddies.

A flat tax is the only "fair" way to tax everyone. Even the so called poor should be paying a small tax so they will have an actual stake in the country and understand that government costs the taxpayer. Both parties have signed onto the welfare state, as well as padding the nests of the rich.

OTOH, I've never seen a poor man hire anyone into his company. The entrepreneurs that start companies are the ones that hire people, and if they succeed, their success should be rewarded. Instead, people like Tibberton would rather it were stolen by the government.

Tibberton| 9.28.11 @ 9:06PM

The Democrats had a very large part in writing the tax code to help their rich buddies.

So what? Unfair is unfair. Why should you pay more of every dollar you make than Buffett pays of every dollar he makes?

A flat tax is the only "fair" way to tax everyone.

Under a flat tax someone like Buffett would no longer get away with paying a lower rate than you. Sounds like a step in the direction of fairness!

OTOH, I've never seen a poor man hire anyone into his company. The entrepreneurs that start companies are the ones that hire people, and if they succeed, their success should be rewarded.

The best tax rates aren't for people who create jobs, my poor naive friend. If you invest your hard-earned money in starting a company, the federal government will take a MUCH larger percentage of your dollars than they take out of the money Buffett makes by collecting dividend checks on stocks he owns in some personal brokerage account somewhere. They'll take money at a higher rate than that when your corporation makes profits, they'll take more for the employer share of the payroll tax, they may hit you up for other taxes as well depending on what kind of business you're in.

I disagree with that, too, BTW, but it's a different problem from the fact that Buffett pays less out of the dollars he earns by collecting dividend checks then you pay out of the dollars you earn by working hard for a living, assuming you do.

Right Right, Mmmm Hmmm| 9.28.11 @ 10:43PM

Tibberton,

Keep in mind 2 things:

(1) Corporate profits are taxed twice; once at the corporate level (35%), and then again at the shareholder level (15%) for a total tax of 44.75% on dividends received. This means that shareholders take home just over $.55 of every dollar of profit earned, far less than the $.85 we're led to believe Buffet takes home on such earnings.

Also, capital gains are taxed twice as well. Virtually all assets are valued based on the expectation of future earnings (discounted cash flows). This means that when the expectation of future earnings increases, so does the underlying asset value, and if you happen to realize those gains (sell the asset), you'll pay capital gains tax of up to 15%. Later, when the expectation of future earnings (which you just paid capital gains taxes on) materialize into actual earnings, those earnings are again taxed at the corporate rate of 35%. Again, the net result is an effective rate of somewhere between 40% and 50% of the earnings of the underlying asset, far greater than the 15% we commonly refer to.

(2) Don't confuse effective rates with statutory rates. Buffet's effective rate is approx 17%. Although in the 28% statutory rate bracket, a married couple filing jointly must earn at least $150K per year to yield an effective tax rate of 17%, and that's with no itemized deductions. The idea that lower middle class people are paying less than the uber rich is rediculous.

Tibberton| 9.29.11 @ 12:33AM

On your first point ... I'm not sure what your point is, unless you were just agreeing with me. The high corporate tax rates are insane. That's the real drag on job creation.

That is, of course, not the issue with Buffett's income. Collecting a dividend check doesn't create jobs. That's just a sweet way to structure income, if you can swing it, but you've got to be pretty rich to arrange for most of your income to be dividends rather than wages.

Set the corporate tax rate to zero. But if we're deciding which way of earning income to encourage with a low tax rate, the low rate should be for people who make their money working hard for a living, and the higher rate for the people who make their money by having their broker deposit their dividend checks for them.

For your second point, sure. Of course. Now just change your focus from money the government takes from you via Form 1040 to money the government takes from you via all taxes, and compare your total tax burden percentage to Bufett's. His is still around 17% because all of the other taxes you pay are so regressive that they make a negligible difference to his total effective rate. Yours ... not so negligible.

TrueBlue| 9.29.11 @ 1:46PM

How about instead of increasing taxes on the "rich" we decrease taxes on everyone else? That way middle class families get more of their own money back. I like that solution far better. Reduce the income tax rate for everyone that pays at a higher rate to the same level as the capital gains tax. If you pay a lower rate right now then you continue to pay that rate.

I really have very little issue with people getting back all of the money they paid in taxes the previous year, it was originally taken out of their income and the government made its money on the interest, etc. What I have an issue with is people getting MORE than what they paid into the system. That is wealth redistribution no matter how you try to word it.

oldfart| 9.28.11 @ 6:47AM

Sometimes when people are very successful in one field of endeavor they come to believe in their own superiority in all areas. Hollywood actors are a perfect example of this. Also, somewhere along the way these people begin to believe in their own superiority in all areas. Unfortunately what happens at the party as the Shakespearean groundings hang on every word the expert utters, a word or phase will be be expounded that will immediately make everyone in the room, except the speaker, so uncomfortable that a period of silence will follow as people realize that the speaker is a bloody fool on that subject. Next someone will crack a joke, there will be a forced laugh, and the entire gathering will pretend nothing happened.
Mr. Buffett's recent comments should be taken in that context.

Brubaker| 9.28.11 @ 8:50AM

Add community organizers to that list.

Bob K.| 9.28.11 @ 7:03AM

" ............prop up the indefensible pension plan for government employees."

You have hit on one of the major problems affecting our economy! The uncontrolled inflation of our federal bureaucracy. These bureaucrats run the country instead of our elected representatives. This is why Nancy Pelosi was able to say about the abominable health care bill that "we have to pass it before we will know what is in it."

The time has come to put at least half of these bureaucrats out in the street to fend for themselves.

For that to happen we have to elect people willing to do that. It is not likely that there will be much sympathy for those who are fired out in "fly over" country. In fact, it will be popular with with the electorate!

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.28.11 @ 7:20AM

As the old saying goes: "That's easy for you to say."
The Rich should pay more taxes. That's what the RICHEST man in America, says.
And, why not? He could pay at a 50% Rate, and still be a Billionaire. Add in to the mix, that he's on Life's "Down slope", and you see the problem.
He's already gotten his, a Looooooooooooong time ago. He's had a lot of years to run his mouth, and write his checks. So, why now?
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. A Study has determined that 20% of Americans, suffer from one Mental Disorder, or another. GALLUP tells us that 20% of Registered Voters identify themselves as Liberals. Obama received votes from, roughly, 20% of the American population, in 2008.
Warren Buffett is OLD. He's very old.
I remember, as a boy, watching my Grandfather slip away. His mind was leaving him. I didn't understand. We just thought that he was being funny. Who knew?
Buffett KNOWS, that if you want LESS of something, you TAX it more.
Or, at least he did.
He's been trading in Companies for decades. He KNOWS that too many Regulations, and Fees, and Added Costs, are what drives American Corporations to pick up and leave.
As least, he used to.
Does he KNOW that his Company OWES a Billion $ in BACK TAXES? Does he remember that he has an Army of High Priced Lawyers, fighting tooth and nail, to keep him from PAYING HIS TAXES?
Is he a Useful Idiot?
Or, just an INCONTINENT one?
The Great Capitalist doing what he can to save the MARXIST, who would bring this Country to it's knees.
Maybe, he's both?

John II| 9.28.11 @ 10:57AM

Well, when you consider the well-heeled class from which the great majority of Lefties come, it's clear that socialism (a cluster of bad ideas) is one of the noxious byproducts of capitalism (which I would define as the aspect of normal economic relations spoiled by sin). It's all in the morals, guys, and the creepy population control policies into which Mr. Buffett has pour billions are not moral. Mr. Buffett is the Man from N.I.C.E.

Georgia Patriot| 9.28.11 @ 12:14PM

Well said.

TrueBlue| 9.29.11 @ 3:12PM

Nope, it makes perfect sense for him to be driving down businesses both large and small. Look what happened with BofA, it was going under and he "invested" in the company, gaining a HUGE amount of control over one of the largest banks in the nation. As businesses are driven to the brink of bankrupcy he can use all that cash he has acquired to buy more companies thereby bypassing the Death Tax for those who will inherit his money after he dies.

He is sucking up to Obama and the Dems now so he can acquire as much as possible, knowing full well that when they get booted out and the economy gets back on track he and his inheritors will gain billions. Of course, this assumes that libs are only allowed to take this course for so long. Basically he's playing craps with the US economy.

Intelligent Design| 9.28.11 @ 7:55AM

Buffett is sucking up to the Obama administration in hopes of more favorable treatment by the regulatory Gestapo.

hardcard| 9.28.11 @ 8:07AM

I see old warren had time to remove that thumb from his a$$.

York Hawk| 9.28.11 @ 8:59AM

To an Australian,the thumbs up means the same as our extended middle finger.

Dick Nome| 9.28.11 @ 9:14AM

A bit like flashing the V for Victory sign in Old Blighty but showing the back of your hand to the target instead, Eh??

Moe Blotz| 9.28.11 @ 8:56AM

Is Warren Buffet collecting his Social Security benefits? He reached 65 a while back and if he is collecting,I wonder what he does with his cheque.

Shamus| 9.28.11 @ 9:54AM

Buffett has said that his Social Security checks are automatically deposited to a bank account and that he never touches the money. He's said that he has no use for it and doesn't think it should be paid to him, but he's collecting it all the same.

Nick| 9.28.11 @ 11:44PM

Shamus,

"[...] but he's collecting it all the same."

I'm sure other rich stinking liberals collect, and spend, their Socialist Security. It's in their nature.

If Republicans were smart (which they definitely are not) they would have started playing class warfare against the democrats a long time ago.

Imagine if the Republican nominee would hit President Downgrade with, "Why is it okay for people like Ted Turner, Babs Streisand, Norman Lear, and George Soros to receive a check from a taxpayer who is working two jobs? Why should a woman who works 70 hours a week as a waitress, and has to find daycare for her chillllldren, why does she have to contribute to a system that gives taxpayer money, and free Viagra, to Hugh Hefner?"

Perhaps, it has to do with the fact that far too many Republicans like dipping into the public trough themselves? Can anyone here imagine John McCain, who married rich, giving up his Congressional pension? Has Newt Gingrich ever been asked if he collects his taxpayer funded pension? Hasn't he made enough off of all of those books?

sjccoach| 9.28.11 @ 9:25AM

Mr. Buffett is a huge hypocrite. If he truly believed in what he said he would not be leaving his money to charities and foundations. He should just let the government take his money via the inheritance taxe.

Dan Hirsch| 9.28.11 @ 9:53AM

I am reminded of the business school case "Jarman Shoe Co" which described an established publicly traded company whose founder and COB refused to relinquish day-day control of operations to his son, the appointed CEO. The lecturer in our business strategy class called for strategysuggestions all of which he dismissed. Finally, he hollered in a staid MBA classroom in a staid MBA school building in the middle of a big city, "Just take the bastard out and shoot him!" You never saw so many MBA's get so pale so fast. Unfortunately for me, I was the one who laughed out loud.

The lecturer's point had something to do with "feasibility of plans."

Feasibility, what a concept!

DTOM

Moe Blotz| 9.28.11 @ 11:16AM

And stop collecting his Social Security cheques .

MizGeel| 9.28.11 @ 11:29AM

Totally agree, Warren Buffett is the worst kind of hypocrite. He can afford to let the government take 100% of his income without a problem but as for me, taxes severely limit my ability to live my life. I also find it unacceptable that 50% of Americans pay no taxes so essentially I work to support not only my family but the family down the street that feels they don't make enough to pay taxes. B. S.!!

Everybody should pay something, you live here and enjoy the advantages of our society, you should contribute. (exceptions for elderly and truly disabled)

WB| 9.28.11 @ 3:06PM

taxes severely limit my ability to live my life.

That's because you're working for a living, and the tax code is not written in favor of people who get their money through wages. You'd be paying a much lower percentage of your money to the government if you could structure your income the way someone like Buffett can.

But we're Republicans and we like it this way. We don't mind paying more out of every dollar we earn than Warren Buffett pays out of what he earns. It gives us an incentive to try to become a billionaires!

Poor little Warren Buffy is sad that he pays such a low percentage in taxes. Boo hoo hoo. Well I say we cut the dividend rate and capital gains rate to zero so he pays NO taxes. That will drive him CRAZY.

MikeBee| 9.28.11 @ 9:28AM

Neal's right. Without a Successor plan for Berkshire Hathaway, I would pull every dollar I have with BH immediately. At 87, it's very likely that Buffett will not last much longer.

As far as Buffett's tax desires, I think he's realizing that his time here is not much longer, and is trying to find a way to give back to Society. As others have pointed out here before, one can always choose to give more tax money to the Federal Government. They won't turn it down. If Buffett thinks that he's not taxed enough, he can voluntarily increase the amount he pays to the Feds.

Dan Hirsch| 9.28.11 @ 9:55AM

So Warren thinks that the best thing for our economy is a big dose of growth and job killing tax increases? Sounds like Warren's calling for a good old fashioned screwing...

DTOM

NHarris| 9.28.11 @ 3:11PM

Without a Successor plan for Berkshire Hathaway

Rest easy. There is a successor plan for BH. After Warren dies the company will do just fine. I own a ton of it now, and if the stock price drops dramatically when he dies I'll buy a ton more. On the other hand it's no secret that he's old so the fact that he's not going to live forever is probably already priced into the stock to a large extent. It's trading close to book value now, i.e., close to what you could get for it if you just sold off the shares of Coke and other assets that BH holds and turned them all into cash.

Inspector Clouseau| 9.28.11 @ 9:31AM

Ah Ha !

Soooo Monsieur Buffett, you gave your cheque to your minkey.

CI Dreyfus| 9.28.11 @ 11:18AM

Minkey?

Dan Hirsch| 9.28.11 @ 2:09PM

That's what he said, "minkey."

Have you seen his minkey?

HeeHaw

9thID| 9.28.11 @ 10:08AM

We Nebraskans have a new name for Buffett - The Oligarch of Omaha. Good friends with Ben "Cornhusker Kickback" Nelson...

Stormy| 9.28.11 @ 10:10AM

"Year after year for more than a half-century Mr. Buffett has faithfully paid his income taxes."

Really? Then why is his company fighting with IRS about $1 billion of taxes that the IRS says that they owe? Why are they fighting not to pay $1 billion of taxes, and at the same time, Buffet wants the government to raise his taxes? Total hypocrisy. Buffet takes every legal action to minimize his tax obligations (which is his right), and makes a political argument that the government should make him pay more.

Anthony| 9.28.11 @ 10:16AM

The old saying goes,"there's no fool like an old fool". Buffett has become a laughing stock puppet for the Muslim Marxist's propaganda daily side show.
How sad that at his advanced age, Buffett could not leave this world with his dignity intact. Pride cometh before the fall, and what a fall Buffett's ego has staring him in the face!
I wonder what tax rate God will apply to Buffett when he enters the pearly gates?

Clint| 9.28.11 @ 10:21AM

Berkshire announced a stock buyback, for the first time in 40 years.
Apparently, Buffett & Munger don't see anything out there as worth buying.

They were down 17 Percent this year.

martin j smith| 9.28.11 @ 10:33AM

We can do a lot of talking about how absurd Warren Buffett's call for higher taxes on Millionaires and Billionaires . As in many issues, this one is an example of two things: Socialist Media domination and Republican lack of leadership.
What really needs to be done includes a number of direct challenges to Buffett--to open his tax documents--lets see if he pays his fair share so to speak. Beyond that this Class Warfare bit out to lead to an investigation of Obama's taxes plus his aristocratic lifestyle: As in "let them eat cake".

I thin that "our side" the Conservative side --if there is a Presidential nominee should state
"everyone without exception pays their taxes"
as par of tax reform. No more bailouts.

Georgia Patriot| 9.28.11 @ 11:59AM

No tax in America on ANYTHING should be higher than 10%, except in time of a true blue national emergency, at which time the Fed may have, with the citizens' permission, 20%, which is what Pharoah of Egypt collected to prepare for a 7 year famine. The Fed has proven themselves to be so abyssmal at managing money that they do not deserve one extra nickel from ANYBODY. If the Fed needs more cash, with which to line pork barrels, or perhaps even (God forbid) to pay off its $15 TRILLION debt, then the Fed needs to sell its land, minerals, timber, buildings, Fort Knox gold, collectibles, the Ark of the Covenant, and whatever else the Fed has socked away. If they don't see the "fairness" in this, then they will have within the foreseeable future a financial collapse, like Germany after World War One, and another American Revolution. I feel no moral prohibition against resisting a government that has bankrupted the nation. It has not reached that point yet, but I am seething at 50 years of Presidential and Congressional stupidity.

Peppermint Tea| 9.28.11 @ 5:37PM

Great idea! A federal assets sale!
Captain Hill, is that you?

Walter | 9.28.11 @ 12:09PM

I've seen Mr Buffet on TV too many times. He revels in the rock star attention he's given. He often laughs at his replies that aren't funny at all. It has been said he doesn't receive a salary but is compensated with dividends to pay less taxes. If so, he might be the biggest hypocrite in history. How he was able to attain such wealth is a testament to the greatness of our country. I hope when Obama loses in 12 buffet will return to being only a popular dining style.

bluecollarbytes| 9.28.11 @ 10:59PM

A 'negative tax rate' is less relevant today with so many receiving 'negative-paychecks'.

Obama is trying to win through class and race war now. He's got nothing left, including the willingness to drop his ideological obsessions in exchange for real economy-building.

Oh yeah...he's also now the 'outsider' railing against the DC Borg.

Leroi| 9.28.11 @ 11:01PM

"Total hypocrisy. Buffet takes every legal action to minimize his tax obligations (which is his right), and makes a political argument that the government should make him pay more."

Almost there. He is more than a hypocrite, he is a fraud.

He specifically and intentionally arranges his financial affairs so that he pays, and will pay, as little tax as possible, yet claims he should pay more tax.

All the fraudulent huckster has to do to pay more tax, is to arrange his financial affairs so that he does pay more tax: no deferred compensation, only ordinary wage W2 income; no taxfree municipal bonds, only ordinary income corporates; no estate planning devices, foundations or trusts, just naked to the estate tax; no deducting charitable contributions, just making them.

All the "rich" who claim they should be required to pay more are equally fraudulent.

Canadian Libertarian| 9.28.11 @ 11:42PM

The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . theease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potentialfor growth in the economy.
-- President John F. Kennedy, 1963

Brian| 9.29.11 @ 2:15AM

Buffet knows Repubs will bail him out if he needs cash. Repubs just back a truck full of our hard earned money a give it to him. Like they did for GE/MSNBC and Goldman Sachs and Planned Parenthood.

Nathan| 9.29.11 @ 3:27PM

Correct me if I'm wrong but corporations never actually pay taxes do they, they just collect them? Set the corporate tax rate at 50 percent and all that does is raise the cost of goods and services? To be sure whatever they distribute to shareholders gets taxed at whatever level, but does Target REALLY pay taxes or just serve as the tax collector?

Fairness . . . . That 50 percent who pay no taxes derive benefits from the government like national defense as much as middle class people do. Is it fair to them to get such benefits without paying anything for those benefits? What is FAIR about that?

We will recall that in the early days the Founders did not allow people who lacked property, income whatever to vote. Their feeling was that such people had no stake in the system except to vote to take money from other people to give to themselves. Is it perhaps time to bring that system back? If say a person is on welfare or other forms of dole, or does not in fact pay federal taxes for whatever reason (we might exclude from this anyone who has ever served in the military), then should we consider barring them from the polls? After all was not part of the New Deal and Great Society programs driven precisely by people who had nothing to lose by voting for senators and represetatives who were more than willing to buy their votes in that manner?

Just a thought. Again remember what Madison said in response to a bill regarding relief of French refugees. He could not put his finger on the article of the Constitution that allowed him to spend his constitutents money on behalf of benevolence. If the father of the Constitution couldn't find the article for federal "benevolence" spending, it clearly doesn't exist but perhaps one of the ways to bring it in check is to simple bar people from voting who again are on welfare or some form of dole like food stamps or other such federal programs and don't pay federal taxes.
Again just a thought. Another form of "fairness"?

Jeremy Janson | 10.2.11 @ 11:47PM

"That 50 percent who pay no taxes derive benefits from the government like national defense as much as middle class people do. Is it fair to them to get such benefits without paying anything for those benefits? What is FAIR about that?"

Life isn't fair. And you're right, they collect benefits, far more then anyone else actually, but the reality is that they can barely survive. It's a sad reality that in todays America the percentage who can barely survive is so high, but then again, that's what happens when you've spent the last 60 years discouraging all productive industry.

More Articles by Neal B. Freeman

More Articles From A Further Perspective

The Devils Koch

May 24, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

May 22, 2013 | Doug Bandow

Flatten the IRS

May 20, 2013 | Ray V. Hartwell, III

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

May 17, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

Pick Obama’s Brain

May 16, 2013 | Paul Kengor

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/28/the-market-sends-a-signal-shor

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|27 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|60 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|94 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 5.25.13

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.